Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Typical Politics of Fear response. You should be a Republican. :lol: Actually, I was being serious. We have a long way to go before we can really determine if what has been done was effective in the desired manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 hence the need to have enough evidence to legally obtain a warrant.Do you want a judge with the brain of Pelosi listening to the evidence on whether or not a warrant is granted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 That's not correct from a legal point of view. Searches based on "Probable Cause" are entirely Constitutional.Of course, that standard has nothing to do with surveillance warrants, which is the matter under discussion, but your blanket statement isn't supported by any US law (including the Constitution). I think what he is alluding to is the warrantless wiretaps though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Do you want a judge with the brain of Pelosi listening to the evidence on whether or not a warrant is granted?No. I would rather have her phone tapped. Legally of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members collinwho Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 That's not correct from a legal point of view. Searches based on "Probable Cause" are entirely Constitutional.Of course, that standard has nothing to do with surveillance warrants, which is the matter under discussion, but your blanket statement isn't supported by any US law (including the Constitution). From a legal point of view, probable cause isn't the same as a strong suspicion. Although I understand what you are getting at. I didn't allow for probable cause in my original statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 The constitution does not agree with you. Nor do the founding fathers and many constitutional scholars. As I just stated to CollinWho, yes it does. However, almost certainly not in the manner in which Iualum suggests. On the subject of surveillance, the standard is one that requires a warrant, due to the lack of exigence in most surveillance situations (and FISA allowed for a 72 hour warrantless period as a concession to the exigency often present in the situations with which it dealt). However, the Constitution does not prohibit warrantless searches. It prohibits unreasonable searches. In situations where the circumstances make it overly impractical to get a warrant, searches can be justified by probably cause (e.g., the police don't need a warrant to search someone they just arrested for shooting someone, etc...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think what he is alluding to is the warrantless wiretaps though.Oh yeah, hence my second sentence.By every legal standard and court decision, Iualum is wrong about the wiretaps.But there are indeed searches that don't require warrants. Iualum's statement was technically correct, but almost certainly wrong as it pertained to what he was talking about...(He was accidentally correct in a technical sense ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 Actually, I was being serious. We have a long way to go before we can really determine if what has been done was effective in the desired manner. I agree. It has at the present time calmed the public to fears that their money isn't safe and banks do have some cash to be able to lend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 As I just stated to CollinWho, yes it does. However, almost certainly not in the manner in which Iualum suggests.On the subject of surveillance, the standard is one that requires a warrant, due to the lack of exigence in most surveillance situations (and FISA allowed for a 72 hour warrantless period as a concession to the exigency often present in the situations with which it dealt).However, the Constitution does not prohibit warrantless searches. It prohibits unreasonable searches. In situations where the circumstances make it overly impractical to get a warrant, searches can be justified by probably cause (e.g., the police don't need a warrant to search someone they just arrested for shooting someone, etc...). True. But we are not talking about physical searches, we are talking about wiretaps. They are different as you point out. And the biggest problem I had with this situation is that many wiretaps were done with no "positive" results and therefore the warrants were never applied for. The practical application of FISA allowed government agents to tap without a warrant and if nothing came of it, they would just consider that it "never happened". Big big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 From a legal point of view, probable cause isn't the same as a strong suspicion.Although I understand what you are getting at. I didn't allow for probable cause in my original statement. And honestly, "strong suspicion", when dealing with law enforcement, is usually based on evidence. As much as I distrust the govt., they don't often wiretap random people, they've got a reason. (And considering it was only like one out of every several thousand warrants that got denied, and they had a 72 hour cushion to get the warrant retroactively, there's no excuse for not getting the warrant)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Johnny_Crab Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Because yeah, civil liberties only matter when you're personally getting jacked...I mean, if you're not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have to worry, right? The new StimUSELESS is already working !TURNING 401K's INTO 201K's AND..."Not even I imagined we would see trillions of dollars being created and given to the culprits as a means of allegedly "saving" the system. This is not mere Keynesianism; it is Keynesianism on steroids and crystal meth.""It's a far cry from the world we thought we'd inherit. It's a far cry from the way we thought we'd share it. You can almost feel the current flowing, You can almost see the circuits blowing. One day I feel I'm on top of the world, and the next it's falling in on me. "...RUSH"History reveals that the lesson of deferred gratification must be periodically refreshed by memories indelibly imprinted with the cries of hungry children.""When everything looks like a nail and all you've got is a Keneysian hammer, you just keep pounding until the head snaps off!"..................................................................................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 The new StimUSELESS is already working ! TURNING 401K's INTO 201K's AND..."Not even I imagined we would see trillions of dollars being created and given to the culprits as a means of allegedly "saving" the system. This is not mere Keynesianism; it is Keynesianism on steroids and crystal meth." "It's a far cry from the world we thought we'd inherit. It's a far cry from the way we thought we'd share it. You can almost feel the current flowing, You can almost see the circuits blowing. One day I feel I'm on top of the world, and the next it's falling in on me. "...RUSH "History reveals that the lesson of deferred gratification must be periodically refreshed by memories indelibly imprinted with the cries of hungry children.""When everything looks like a nail and all you've got is a Keneysian hammer, you just keep pounding until the head snaps off!"..................................................................................... Okay, I gotta ask. where did that LAST quote come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 The one point on the wiretapping everyone seems to conveniently forget is that the wiretaps are on calls coming from overseas from suspected terrorists into the US only. The question is whether since they originate overseas, are they covered under unreasonable S and S. Agree or disagree, that is the major point of contention. They aren't wiretapping anyone making calls in the US (well, as far as we know ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 The one point on the wiretapping everyone seems to conveniently forget is that the wiretaps are on calls coming from overseas from suspected terrorists into the US only. The question is whether since they originate overseas, are they covered under unreasonable S and S. Agree or disagree, that is the major point of contention. They aren't wiretapping anyone making calls in the US (well, as far as we know ) I didn't conveniently forget it, it's still a call in the US, so to me, that's a problem. I don't care who is on the other end of the call or who called who or where the other person is.And yeah, as far as we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 I didn't conveniently forget it, it's still a call in the US, so to me, that's a problem. I don't care who is on the other end of the call or who called who or where the other person is. And yeah, as far as we know. Actually I don't agree with it either but that is the main agruement and it's amazing how often it's not mentioned. It's kinda how the press glosses over the real details of Katrina, they have their scapegoat already. And seriously most people in an uproar probably thought it was legal for the gov to monitor overseas calls before they were told it wasn't. The dumb part was not getting the warrents after the fact. No real logical reason for that and no advantage except skipping paperwork. They just gave critics a bat to beat them over the head with for no apparent advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 11, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 11, 2009 And yeah, as far as we know. Doom and gloom fearmongering again with this post. You should run for office. You'd fit right in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 Actually I don't agree with it either but that is the main agruement and it's amazing how often it's not mentioned. It's kinda how the press glosses over the real details of Katrina, they have their scapegoat already. And seriously most people in an uproar probably thought it was legal for the gov to monitor overseas calls before they were told it wasn't. The dumb part was not getting the warrents after the fact. No real logical reason for that and no advantage except skipping paperwork. They just gave critics a bat to beat them over the head with for no apparent advantage. Well yeah, there's that. Plus the fact it's illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 (e.g., the police don't need a warrant to search someone they just arrested for shooting someone, etc...).They don't?Man, that really puts a crimp in my plans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jasper383 Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 They don't? Man, that really puts a crimp in my plans! Mine, too. I was going to get that house free and clear BOALG is promising everyone. Anyone read this?: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ebea1b8-f794-11dd-81f7-000077b07658.html All the stimulus in the world won't get us anywhere if the banks are still a mess, and our government is answering a banking problem with "prime the pump" answers. Some things I read send chills down my spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members toolbar Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 I know, I'm just reflecting on the how the "failed policies of the last 8 years" had 5 of those last 8 years near historic record economic growth....that no one ever heard about! but, if I hit the lottery and spend most of the money on booze and women and then just piss the rest away, I'm still broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members countrybass Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 I really don't understand any of it, but I sure hope it works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 but, if I hit the lottery and spend most of the money on booze and women and then just piss the rest away, I'm still broke.He did NOT spend it on booze and women! ......as far as we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 11, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 11, 2009 I really don't understand any of it, but I sure hope it works! What if I told you the economy was going to turn around on its own (regardless of the stimulus). Would you believe that the Administration is still going to take credit for any gain and attribute it to this bill, whether this bill has/had anything to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 What if I told you the economy was going to turn around on its own (regardless of the stimulus). Would you believe that the Administration is still going to take credit for any gain and attribute it to this bill, whether this bill has/had anything to do with it? Of course...I mean, you're already doing so, and you have no vested interest in it other than party affiliation...Just think of the convoluted thinking that someone could put forth if they actually had something to do with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bassin' 'Round Posted February 11, 2009 Members Share Posted February 11, 2009 As long as you are not the one suspected, it's okay then....right?A lot of people use the term "slippery slope" way too much, but in this case I feel it is more than justified to describe this type of thinking. ...as long as there is strong suspicion that terrorism is involved, it is 100% O.K. ... ...in the case of terrorism, the possible catastrophic results greatly outweigh the small number of instances when warrantless wiretaps might be needed... ...as for me, personally, I have nothing to hide, so my mundane calls could be listened to all day, although they wouldn't because none of my calls would involve a suspected terrorism aspect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.